The success of evolution by natural selection tells us that one can optimize one's response to an environment whose properties aren't understood, by simply trying everything and noticing what works, what prevails. Genetic programming is the computer-science version of natural selection. And A/B testing is a simple version of genetic programming.
This article appears to push people to consider beyond that: new things.
Yes, but the issue isn't new things, it's which new things. For that, you need testing. If people were either rational or predictable, this argument would fall apart. But they aren't.
Honestly, I think it's a given that web personalization is deeply rooted in A/B testing. But instead of testing for what's best for the aggregate, you're testing for what's best for each individual.
That's interesting, but I suspect most people want to maximize visits, in which case they're after the aggregate. I'm not saying I agree with the sentiment, but I think it's true.
Comments
The success of evolution by natural selection tells us that one can optimize one's response to an environment whose properties aren't understood, by simply trying everything and noticing what works, what prevails. Genetic programming is the computer-science version of natural selection. And A/B testing is a simple version of genetic programming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming
Yes, but the issue isn't new things, it's which new things. For that, you need testing. If people were either rational or predictable, this argument would fall apart. But they aren't.
Honestly, I think it's a given that web personalization is deeply rooted in A/B testing. But instead of testing for what's best for the aggregate, you're testing for what's best for each individual.
That's interesting, but I suspect most people want to maximize visits, in which case they're after the aggregate. I'm not saying I agree with the sentiment, but I think it's true.